Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
We Americans love our fast food. And a new study shows that a little thing like a nutrition label is not gonna stop us when we want a breakfast burrito.
In January 2009 King County, Washington imposed mandatory menu labeling on all restaurant chains in the region, which includes Seattle and its surrounds. Restaurants were asked to disclose nutrition information, including a calorie count, about every item on the menu.
Then, over the next year, researchers in conjunction with local public health officials monitored food purchases at the Taco Time chain of restaurants. And they found that nothing changed. The total number of sales and the average calories per order were the same, regardless of whether the restaurant labeled its menu. The study appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. [Eric Finkelstein et al, Mandatory Menu Labeling in One Fast-Food Chain in King County, Washington]
Now, it could be that Taco Time customers were already wise to the relative nutritiousness of their meals, because the restaurant was highlighting its healthier options with a little logo before the law took effect.
So maybe all we need is a happy, "healthy icon" to keep us from overdoing it. Because pointing out that a large order of cheddar fries has 700 calories was not food for thought.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThe idea that the customers of this fast food establishment did not have a pretty good handle on the general health characteristics of the food before the law was passed seems to the the flawed assumption here. So no big surprise. If you want to change people's behavior you have to give them information they don't already know. Which is why warning labels on cigarette packs are such a sad joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this... and pray what is the calorie count of the subject?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We Americans love our fast food. And a new study shows that a little thing like a nutrition label is not gonna stop us when we want a breakfast burrito."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-This is inconsequential and obvious. If we had labels on our food, at least those of us that would control our habits would now have the capacity to. Currently, we do not.
-I realize Vendors fear the consumer knowing what they put in there food, hambergers are often not beef, but some of view it as an inalienable right to know what they are doing to our food and to know what nutrition is in our food. We are not cattle.
In all seriousness, this is no surprise because it ignored the obvious other factors in the decision to eat fast food (or any restaurant fare.) In almost all cases, it is cheaper and healthier to prepare food at home, yet we value the convenience of occasionally having someone else prepare our food over the money. Likewise, healthy eating is, well, healthy. But we value the flavor sensations of all that fat and salt and sugar, and the dopamine laden sensation of being full much higher than we value the incremental negative impact of any one meal on our bodies. Its still important that we have access to this knowledge, but we wont see any real change in the populations habits because of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are obsessed with food and body image. As people with no souls, we are doomed...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's face it. People pretty much know if something is relatively higher or lower in calories just by looking at it. And they pretty much know that they need to eat less and exercise more if they want to be healthy and live longer. And most chose to ignore what they already know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe food police need to recognize that people don't decide what to eat based on some label with a bunch of numbers on it, and that their well intended efforts are futile. Some people simply chose to be unhealthy. Let them wallow in their chosen lifestyle.
The author just demonstrated that you're suppositions about the effectiveness of food labels were dead wrong. You didn't claim faulty methodology or too small sample size - you just chose to ignore the results in front of you. Isn't that what liberals claim when the right ignores scientific data you do approve of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that what a lot of experts miss is that people tend to eat at fast food places for two reasons: Convenience or as a treat. If you're going there for convenience, you're going to get whatever it is you usually get. If you're going there as a special treat, you're going to get what seems like the most delicious option. Neither of these reasons for eating at a fast food place include worrying about nutrient balance or calorie count. I live in Seattle and I never give more than a passing glance at the calorie counts posted, since I only ever eat fast food as a treat. If the most delicious item on the menu is also the most calorie-laden, so be it! I'm only eating it once or twice a year anyhow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, exactly. Fast food lovers know that the food is bad for them but still choose it because it's cheap (probably cheaper than making a healthy meal at home). But at other restaurants, diners may want calorie and nutrient information to make informed decisions. They may even be shocked at some non fast food chain restaurant's calorie contents, especially when the item does not "look" unhealthy. I don't think this study proves that menu labeling is ineffective in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been a menu developer, engineer and food marketer for nearly 25 years and I've come to appreciate that consumers are really interested in taste, mouth feel and stomach feel. Fast food restaurants are very good at making the food taste good, and they offer foods that will fill you up. The reason they are cheap is because there is pressure from competitors to keep it that way. Many restaurant operators would love to take prices up, but to do so would make them less competitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChanging consumer behavior needs to start with how we Americans connect with food in the first place. In our country eating has taken on some unhealthy habits. Many may feel as though eating should be instantaneous and self gratifying in and of itself rather than a communal experience meant to nourish our bodies, souls and communities.
Further, it is a mistake to focus and criticize the food industry for not bringing change to consumers. Consumers need to be treated as adults. The food industry is what it is because these adults want it that way. If healthful packaged food was what consumers wanted, food companies would find a way to make it for them. But it's not what consumers want.
McDonald's has offered salads or a long time, but most people don't eat salads at McDonald's. They eat hamburgers and fries. It's not healthy to be critical of McDonald's for making more of one than the other. They want to make a living selling food, and to do that they must make what their audience is willing to buy from them.
In this way, all food companies are alike, and are truly searching for the same thing: a customer based willing to spend money in exchange for food on a regular basis.